Pages

Tuesday 23 April 2019

Living in a state of terror: The new norm?

What follows is one of my periodic ventures into non-wargaming. If you don't think that is what a wargaming blog should be about, please come back on another day when (hopefully) I'll feel ready to write about something that will be of a bit more of interest to you.

I am sixty-nine years old. From 1969 onwards – in other words for the last fifty years – I've lived in a country (and a world) that has been subject to the destructive attentions of more than one terrorist or terror organisation. The list of organisations that I can remember that have launched attacks in the UK includes:
  • The 'Official' Irish Republican Army
  • The 'Provisional' Irish Republican Army
  • The 'Real' Irish Republican Army
  • The 'New' Irish Republican Army
  • The Irish National Liberation Army
  • The Angry Brigade
  • Black September
  • The Ulster Defence Association
  • The Ulster Volunteer Force
  • The South African Security Police
  • Islamic terrorists of various hues
  • Members of Far-Right groups
Over the past few days, terrorism has raised its ugly head again, both in Northern Ireland – where a promising young reporter has been shot dead, probably by a member of the NIRA – and Sri Lanka – where suicide bombers attacked churches and hotels with the apparent desire to kill Christians and foreigners.

When nearly 75% of one's life has been spent living in a world where terrorist acts are so frequent as to be almost commonplace, it is very easy to slip into a feeling that living in a state of terror is the norm. Doing this is very tempting, as it helps one to cope, very much like the way that my parents and grand-parents coped with the Blitz during the Second World War. As Winston Churchill put it, 'Keep b*gg*ring on!'

Most of the time, this is what I – and I suspect a lot of other people – do. We accept the blanket coverage of where we live by CCTV; we accept the need for security checks and searches when we travel on aircraft or ships; we accept the danger ... and try to live with it.

But sometimes – and this is one of them – I just want to shout out loud THIS IS NOT WHAT LIFE SHOULD BE LIKE!

There, I've said it, if not out loud, then in print. Can I do anything to stop what is happening? No! Would I if I could? Yes! Do I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness? Yes! ... and No! ... because I think that a lot of other people think and feel as I do, but rather than ruminate about it at 3.00am (which is what I was doing last night), they just get on with their lives.

Rant over; normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!

I'd like to use this opportunity to express my sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have been killed or wounded in this most recent spate of terrorism. They are going through something that they should not have had to go through, and that I have been lucky enough to have avoided.

I also wish to express my support for everyone involved in dealing with the aftermath of these events. They have also had to cope with things that they may have been trained to deal with, but which they hoped they would never have to face.

30 comments:

  1. Hi BOB,
    These are very disturbing times in which we try to live out a 'normal' life and existence. Going back in time my first knowledge of 'Terrorism' was viewed on TV- I'm not sure of the exact date or circumstance- though I do remember it happened at The Summer International Olympics Event where Terrorists took the Isreali Sports Team hostage and began the killing...as a youngster- I though "what is going on?"..."Why is this happening- this shouldn't occur -and it is wrong!"...Well- I'm saying the same thing even now many decades after the Isreali incident...Terrorists are an absolute small lunatic minority who have virtually destroyed our peace and harmony and changed our lives forever- now it is 'Christians' who have become the target...when will it all stop! We're coming up to our ANZAC Day Commemoration and Marches here - and Australian Authorities have to take the necessary Security precautions for the events held about the country as an absolute priority- because of the threat of 'Terrorist Activity'...this is the Modern Era- it all should not be like this. I'm with you Bob. Regards. KEV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kev Robertson (Kev),

      It was the Munich Olympics in 1972 when the kidnap and killing of the Israelis took place. By that time, the most recent 'Troubles' in Ireland were already well underway (the infamous 'Bloody Sunday' incident took place on 30th January 1972).

      One problem is that terrorists are not mad, although what they do may seem totally insane to the rest of us. They are like all fanatics who believe that they are right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that when people see how corrupt the society they are attacking is, popular support will follow. Unfortunately, it is a world view that is very easier to indoctrinate into idealists who feel dis-empowered by their inability to get change by peaceful means or into people who feel that they are at the bottom of society and have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

      I think that the authorities in Australia are taking the right sort of precautions to prevent something untoward happening on ANZAC Day. They may not be successful (someone wearing a suicide vest and who has nothing to lose might just get through the security net and blow themselves and others up) but they will make it as difficult as they can for anyone intent on carrying out a terrorist act.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  2. As a society we are too soft on these people. We should bring back the death penalty. A person who left these shores to join ISIS, should not get legal aid because their U.K. citizenship has been rightfully revoked. Our human rights laws are a joke.You forgot to add the ANC to the above under South African Security Police. There are unfortunately many other examples such as ZANU PF in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. The list seems endless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,

      I agree that anyone who leaves the UK to fight for an organisation like Daesh should have their citizenship revoked. They made a choice; let them live with the consequences. (I prefer to use the term Daesh rather than ISIS because it is the term that Muslims who do not support the aims of ISIS use; it is similar to the Arabic word دعس‎ (Daes), which means 'someone who crushes (or tramples down) something underfoot'.)

      Would the death penalty help stop suicide bombers? Probably not ... and if someone was captured, put on trial, and executed, they would become martyrs in whose name other atrocities would be committed.

      I do not remember the ANC or ZANU PF committing any terror attacks in the UK. If I had, I would have added them to my list.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  3. I'm 61 myself and have lived through the same history in many ways. However when I step back and take the long view of our own western history, I realize it is far from the worst period to be living in. Our own wars of religion (30 Years War etc.) was far more devastating then anything today, central Europe was laid waste for two centuries with wars and plagues and all the madness that goes with it. That said we had to pass through that and other outrages (colonialism, the world wars), to become a more stable civilization and we are not quite there as a species yet. I am however hopeful that most people want to be left alone and conduct their lives peacefully. That said, we have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and call things as they are, yes there are faults in western civilization but it has more good points than bad and these are worth preserving and indeed defending at need. As for Terrorists being an absolute small lunatic minority, true the actors are, however they have far too much support in far too large section of their community.
    This must be confronted and dealt with. It also has to come from inside that community for it to work at all. I do remain hopeful in humanities ability to adapt and grow up.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don M,

      Your comment was very thoughtful and put present events into an historical perspective. I also agree that to defeat terrorists requires a 'hearts and minds' approach where the potential support for terrorists within a community is slowly eroded until it becomes both insignificant and easier to deal with. Most people just want to live happy, safe, fair, and productive lives; give them that, and the root causes of terrorism can be eradicated.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  4. We've certainly enabled our violent ones to strike down more people, more quickly than tbe days went out with bronze axes and fire to wreak havoc on the next tribe, and do it for less tangible benefits than the days when you could bring back a cauldron or 2 and a new wife when the slaughter and destruction was done.

    I cannot help but feel that unchecked population growth and the relentless march of technology and alienation from nature are more to blame than any philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ross Mac,

      I am not sure what things are like in Canada, but one sometimes feels that the UK is full of people who measure their own worth by the number of 'friends' they have on social media rather than by a realistic measure of self-value. Just travel on public transport, and you see whole buses and train carriages full of people texting, reading emails, looking at Facebook etc., listening to music, or watching videos. Individuals, each in their own little electronic 'bubble'. There is no social interaction taking place other than what they are interacting with on their device.

      Get outside a built-up area ... and one of the biggest complaints I hear is related to the poor mobile phone and/or internet coverage!

      In such a world, the vulnerable, thoughtful, or idealistic who are looking for some sort of more meaningful relationship are prime targets for extremists of every ilk, including criminal gangs. They can be easily 'hooked' on social media, groomed online, and then gradually exposed to 'the group' that will attempt to recruit them. They will be offered friendship, support, and self-worth, things that they don't seem to get elsewhere.

      This may well appear to be a very bleak picture, but as the technology evolves, things may change. The 'brick' mobile phones are a distant memory, the fax no longer seems to be used by anyone anymore, and sitting at a PC to write comments on a blog (just as I am doing now) is becoming passé. It may well be that what comes next may make everyone more interconnected just at a time when it is no longer fashionable to be so.

      Who knows? All we can hope is that whatever comes next in Earth's history will be better than it happens to be now.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  5. What's really depressing to me (and many others) is that in addition to the murderous criminals you listed, the U.S. also continually endures massacres perpetrated by mental deficients who can easily get their hands on automatic weapons. This is partially due to moronic "support" for a vaguely-worded 2nd Amendment regarding the "right to bear arms" (which I think was meant to cover smoothbore muskets only); and partially due to what seems to be an ever-rising inclination to kill people whenever one has some sort of grievance. One of our major political parties, supposedly committed to a "right to life" appears to have no problem with taking it away from innocent bystanders.

    As far as punishment goes, I used to be a committed supporter of the death penalty, but upon reflection, I decided that spending one's life in a maximum security prison (AKA Hell-on-Earth) is a far worse punishment. But whether either fate means anything to a self-righteous murderer seems unlikely.

    And now that we've all thoroughly depressed ourselves,

    Best regards to you and good people everywhere,

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      I think that the US has a deep-seated problem with firearms that will take generations to solve ... although your Supreme Court could reinterpret the Second Amendment to mean something different if they had the will to do so. Problem is that they are all political appointees, and are never going to jointly challenge the Executive and the Legislature by doing something so drastic.

      I made my views about the use of the death penalty for terrorism in my comment to Simon, and like you, I prefer the concept of a 'hell-on-earth' punishment for terrorists.

      Depressing; Yes! But there is always hope, and as long as we have that, things can be changed.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  6. You might find the graphs here quite informative and in some cases surprising - https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nigel Drury,

      They are very informative and interesting sets of data, and well worth looking at in detail. Thanks a lot for sharing the link.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  7. A thoughtful post Bob. Whilst I'm with Don and Nigel on this regarding the big picture (not only on deaths from violence but on the risk of being a victim of less serious violence), it is through our refusal to accept violence as acceptable that we are able to make improvements.

    The death of the young journalist in NI is shocking, as are the events in Sri Lanka, when we stop to think about them. In both cases the proximate cause is that some people who think that our differences are so important that they justify the taking of other people's lifes. How can anyone can be so SURE that their choices and circumstances (pure accident in the case of race to an extent nationality) in life are so correct that they give themselves a superiority over other people. Give me doubt, and subtelty and nuance everyday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nundanket,

      Funnily enough, I think that wargaming has helped me to understand that the use of violence to solve any problem is unacceptable except in the most extreme of circumstances.

      For a long time, I've felt that it is our differences that make us interesting to each other, not our similarities, and that it is by interacting with people who are different from us that we learn more tolerance and gain greater understanding of our fellow humans.

      I also fear those who are so sure that they are right about politics, religion, ethnic superiority etc., and who refuse to have that belief challenged in any way, are deluded. I have my personal beliefs and I try to follow a Christian philosophy of life, but I am no Bible-waving zealot as I have several fundamental doubts about some aspects of Christianity that I have yet to resolve. Those doubts may well resolve themselves one day ... but I'm not sure that they will.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Geordie an Exiled FoG,

      I'm please that some people are!

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  9. As a relative youngster on this blog (I'll be 21 this year), I have not known a world without the high security or radical terrorism of this new age. April 19 is always a scary day for my family. My father survived the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in 1995 and we've watched as people filled with hate continue to commit atrocities around this date. Columbine Highschool April 20 1999. Boston April 15 2013. Sri Lanka April 21 2019. I must admit that when Notre Dame caught fire on April 15 we feared terrorism. I am not on social medias except for blogger and I fear my generation must wake up and see what living is all about. It sure isn't an online thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reese Crawford,

      Welcome! As you grow older, you will probably discover that age is no barrier to wisdom. I certainly have, and working for a large part of my life with people that were younger than me - sometimes a lot younger - made me realise that. Its good to get comments from someone who is not an old fogey like me!

      I remember the events in Oklahoma very well indeed, as it was the first news event I ever saw unfold in real time on our newly-installed cable TV. I'm very pleased to read that your father survived, and I hope that he is still with you.

      Growing up with a world where global and internal terrorism is seemingly growing, and the inevitable consequence is that everyone has to live with heightened levels of security in their daily lives, is something someone of my age can relate to but not fully understand in a way that you do. Bear in mind that it was not always thus, and hope and work towards creating a world where it is no longer necessary.

      Like you, my first reaction to the fire at Notre Dame was 'is it a terrorist act?' In this case it wasn't ... but the fact that this was my first reaction is worrying, and shows how far matters have gone in making terrorism a daily fact-of-life.

      It isn't just your generation who 'must wake up and see what living is all about'; it is something that we all need to do. And you are right about life not being an online thing; its there to be lived for real, not somewhere in cyberspace!

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  10. Perhaps an unduly dark view of the world? Those directly affected by terrorism are an infinitesimally small percentage of the population. If you compare the 69 years before you were born, the widespread threats faced by millions in this country through the course of two global conflicts and various pandemic diseases are of an almost incomprehensibly higher magnitude. What has changed is the scale and immediacy of the media coverage. We are constantly given to believe that we are the most important generation in the history of the planet and everything therefore has to be the biggest/best/worst ever. It isn't. The fatal shooting in Londonderry is very sad but coverage has been out of proportion because she was a "journalist". If, as intended, the victim had been a policeman, it would have been today's chip wrappers by now. People in this country rarely say a sensible word about American politics and society (particularly during the past two years) but I suspect it is rather more the Executive and the Legislature that support the current interpretation of the Second Amendment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy Ramsey,

      I wrote the original draft at about 3.00am when I could not sleep, hence the somewhat 'dark' aspect to it. When I was properly awake, I went back and revised what I had written, but still felt that it was something I wanted to say, even if no one else was going to listen (or in this case, read).

      Rolling news coverage has certainly changed our view of the world ... and not necessarily for the better. One aspect of the death of the young journalist in Northern Ireland that did surprise me somewhat was the fact that she was actually there, and not - as so many journalists seem to do nowadays - covering it by live feed from their desk.

      (I have a friend who is a former journalist who tells me that when they started out, the editor would come into the office and say 'What are you doing here? Go out and get me a story I can print!'. When they retired, the editor would say 'I came into the office and you weren't there. Why weren't you online researching a story?')

      I was being over simplistic when I wrote about the Supreme Courts reluctance to reinterpret the Second Amendment, but it was the body that originally decided that it mean that any citizen had the right to buy and own a gun - or guns - with little or no control. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and it is one that will not go back in, and any politician who even hints at doing so is likely to end up out of office. Any government that tried would probably end up with an armed insurrection on its hands.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  11. Part of the problem I think is that we tend to think of the people who carry out the type of attacks against civilians as in Sri Lanka, and recently in my own city, as THE terrorists. Perhaps they are individuals acting out some rage, or adherents of some insurgent organisation or other (IRA, Al Qaeda, ISIS). But there is a tendency I think to ignore the acts of terrorism carried out by, or with the blessing of, governments - especially Western governments. Those acts will NEVER be visited upon the people who carry them out.

    I believe it is generally overlooked - and Dubya Bush made it his policy to overlook - the retaliatory motives that underlay the '9/11' terrorist attacks in the US. It is government sponsored and government ordered attacks that make me feel angriest, and that even in the wake of the massacre that happened just a few minutes' walk from here. Can anyone explain why the 78 consecutive days of bombing Yugoslavian infrastructure in 1999?

    It transpires that New Zealand has also been subject to a request from a Kiwi jihadist who joined ISIS (I stick with that appellation as the first I became aware of, and no other name change will alter its nature). Popular opinion is that he be left there in the Middle East to stew in his own juice.

    My view is quite the opposite. Bring the guy home. He's our problem; why should he be left to the Syrians or Iraqis or Kurds to deal with? If they want to keep him, well, that might be a matter to investigate and discuss. In this country, if he has violated any law, then try him and sentence according. In this whole war in Syria, I have been on the side of the Assad government, and totally opposed to the Western incited 'insurrection' (which was no insurrection at all but a war carried on by the West using Middle Eastern - mostly non-Syrian at that - auxiliaries). And look at the shambles that left Syria.

    As Crocodile Dundee remarked: 'THAT: that is terrorism.' In retaliation against a nation's assertion of its own independent sovereignty. Like Libya. Like Iraq. Like Afghanistan. Like Honduras. Like Venezuela. I long ago realised that the biggest sponsor of terrorism, bar none, was the United States' government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archduke Piccolo,

      As usual, a very well argued alternative view of the matter under discussion. I only wish that we could meet face-to-face as I'm sure that we would have a great time debating all sorts of matters!

      I've just looked up the definition of terrorism on Google (Yes, I'm just as bad as everyone else in that respect!), and it states that terrorism is 'unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.'

      It is the first word of that definition that is the bone of contention. Can a lawfully-constituted government commit unlawful acts?

      The truth of the matter is that it probably can ... and you certainly cite examples where that could be argued that they have. There are some governments that use state-sponsored terrorism (and state-sponsored assassination/murder) as a tool of foreign policy ... and they are not all the obvious ones!

      I was recently discussing the war in Afghanistan with someone who was complaining about the Taliban. They were in a state of disbelief when I told them that the Taliban had been supplied with weaponry by the US during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. When they told me very emphatically that I was wrong, I replied that they really ought to watch CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, as it was based on true events that they could verify.

      The evidence is out there, if only you can be bothered to look.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
    2. Terrorism is the attempt to gain political aims by deliberate targeting of civilians. It is not the same as collateral damage caused by armed forces in the course of a war, however regrettable that might be.

      It should also be noted that Islamic terrorists, unlike the IRA, wish to kill as many infidels as possible. The IRA did not attempt to kill as many Protestants as possible and was a secular organisation. Although it did target civilians as well as police and army it often gave notice of planned bombings to minimise civilian deaths. I say this not as a fan of the IRA but with the intention to highlight that there is a gradation of evil and not everything is the same old same old.


      Also, the US supported the Islamic groups opposed to the Soviets and their domination of Afghanistan and not specifically the Taliban and certainly not Al Qaeda (as is sometimes claimed). It was a different time then as it was the Cold War and the US actions played a key role in the decline of the Soviet Empire and the consequent destruction of the Iron Curtain and liberation in central and Eastern Europe.

      As for the Gulf Wars they did not happen for the Hell of it. Kuwait was the victim of Iraqi invasion as was Saudi Arabia an attempted target. Israel had scud missiles fired at it, although I am proud to say the Australian SAS played a key role in destroying these weapons behind enemy lines. Also allied troops practised in chemical suits so the fear of chemical weapons was real even if not realised in those wars. Some of us also remember that Saddam Hussein liked to cut up his opponents and deliver them to relatives tied up in baggies. Also the great majority of Muslims killed are killed by other Muslims in the Sunni- Shia divide.

      Nor do I regard the British Empire and other European empires as uniformly bad. In fact the British Empire brought the rule of law and a great deal of progress to many parts of the world.

      Delete
    3. Quantrilltoy,,

      Having been within a few hundred metres of two IRA bombs that detonated without a prior warning being issued, I'm not sure that I totally agree that they tried to exercise some restraint when it came to minimising civilian casualties. One bomb went off close to a secondary school with over a thousand pupils and a special school with several hundred pupils. Luckily, the damage was mainly confined to a few cracked windows, but we were told afterwards that had the bomb been slightly more powerful, we could have had hundreds of casualties due to flying glass. The other bomb was thrown through the door of a pub near an army barracks, even though there were no soldiers inside at the time.

      Other than that, I'm in fairly close agreement with what you have written. There have been times when governments have taken the line that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even Winston Churchill is reputed to have replied that he would certainly entertain the suggestion when asked if he would accept help from the Devil if it would bring about the defeat of Hitler.

      The removal of Saddam Hussein was - in my opinion - justifiable before his invasion of Kuwait. He used state terror of the most horrendous and barbaric type to repress the people of Iraq ... and for that alone he should have been removed. The problem was that politically it was expedient for many countries to ignore what was going on inside his country's borders whilst he appeared to be a bulwark against radical Islam. After the invasion of Kuwait, they could no longer look the other way. Where the allies went wrong was not to have a proper plan for the aftermath of his removal i.e. there was no plan for a managed regime change.

      There are times when the infighting within the Islamic faith seems to mirror the religious upheavals in Europe in the immediate afternath of the Reformation. All we can hope is that eventually the various factions can learn to live with each other, even if the resultant peace may be fragile.

      Was the British Empire a bad thing? Recently I heard an Indian politician state that the British in India had introduced three things that united what had previously been a fragmented collection of states; railways (that quite literally tied the nation together), English (a language that everyone could use regardless of caste and religion), and cricket (a national obsession).

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  12. Canada had also suffered from terrorism, the FLQ crisis in 1970, and the murder of Canadian soldiers and the attack on our parliament buildings in 2014. As someone who believes in God, I can only try to follow the teachings of Jesus and try to fight this evil by treating others with kindness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irishhighlander,

      No country is immune from terrorist attacks, as recent history has shown.

      I seem to remember that there were a series of bombings in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island back in the 1980s and 1990s by a former school teacher, whose only reason for planting the bombs was to get revenge of society.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  13. Bob, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Re the Sri Lanka bombing I have just read the Archbishop of Canterbury's message on facebook re the obscene juxtaposition of mass murder with the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. One thing that I would add to your post is that some terrorists are actually educated professional people (e.g. the London 7/7/ bombers and some of the Sri Lankan murderers) so alienation and/or poverty cannot be their particular 'trigger' to carry out hate-filled acts of murder. I personally think that ideology does play a big part in some terrorists' minds and that we need to somehow defeat/de-legitimise these poisonous beliefs to have any hope of reducing the number of horrific incidents that inspired your post. Very best wishes and a belated Happy Easter, Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony Morton (Anthony),

      A Happy Easter to you and yours.

      I suspect that the choice to mount the attacks at Easter was made to maximise its effect and impact, and as a deliberate attempt to raise the desire amongst Christians to fight back, thus justifying the whole concept of a Holy War to ‘protect’ Islam.

      The truly poor are usually too concerned with staying alive to become suicide bombers. It is the educated lower-middle class - and especially the children of that strata of society - who have the time and resources to take part in terrorism.

      They are like teenagers who discover sex; only they can see how great it is and their parents must have been blind not to appreciate how wonderful it is. It’s the same with social conscience; only the young can ‘see’ what is wrong, and only they can change things for the better.

      One only had to listen to some of the muddle-headed stuff spouted by some members of the Extermination Revolution group to gather that. Some of us have been concerned about growing pollution for years, and have done our best to change things ... but change doesn't happen overnight, however much we would like it to.

      I truly hope that we can persuade the terrorise that what they are doing is counter-productive ... but that is going to take a very long time because it requires a complete change of heart, mind, and belief.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  14. Thank you Bob, I couldn't agree more. Cheers, Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony Morton (Anthony),

      I think that we are not alone in sharing this point-of-view.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete

Thank you for leaving a comment. Please note that any comments that are spam or contain phishing messages or that come from Google Accounts that are 'Unknown' will be deleted.